Palani C vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Palani C, Venkatesh K, and R. Sudhakar, are employees of the GST department. They filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an order dated January 25, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. This CAT order dismissed their miscellaneous application (MA No. 123/2022) which sought execution of a previous CAT order dated June 7, 2016, in O.A. Nos. 1293-1295/2015. The petitioners contended that the CAT had erred in dismissing their application, as the June 7, 2016 order directed the extension of benefits from other judgments, which they believed entitled them to regularization and consequential benefits. The respondents argued that the original O.A. did not seek regularization, but only temporary status, and that a separate application for regularization (O.A. No. 119/2023) was pending before the Tribunal.
Held
The High Court held that the impugned order of the CAT did not require interference. The Court noted that the original O.A. Nos. 1293-1295/2015, disposed of on June 7, 2016, did not include a prayer for regularization of services. Instead, the primary prayer was for the grant of temporary status in accordance with the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993. The Court observed that the respondents had complied with the prayer for temporary status by issuing an order dated February 25, 2017. The second prayer in the O.A., concerning continuity of service, backwages, and pension benefits, was deemed not to arise for consideration without regularization. The Court found the petitioners' reliance on Annexures-A2, A3, and A4 for regularization in the said O.A. to be misplaced, as regularization was not sought. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the pendency of O.A. No. 119/2023 before the Tribunal, where the petitioners had specifically sought regularization of their services. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no error in the CAT's impugned order dismissing the miscellaneous application for execution on the grounds of delay and the lack of a regularization prayer in the original O.A.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated January 25, 2023, passed by the CAT in MA No. 123/2022, warrants interference by this Court, considering the previous order dated June 7, 2016, in O.A. Nos. 1293-1295/2015? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the CAT erroneously dismissed their miscellaneous application for execution. They contended that the CAT's order dated June 7, 2016, in O.A. Nos. 1293-1295/2015, directed the extension of benefits from other judgments (Annexures-A2, A3, and A4), which included regularization and consequential benefits. They asserted that the CAT should have examined their claim for regularization instead of dismissing the application solely on grounds of inordinate delay. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the original O.A. Nos. 1293-1295/2015 did not contain a prayer for regularization of services. Instead, the prayer was limited to seeking temporary status on par with other similarly working casual laborers under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993. They further submitted that consequential benefits like continuity of service and backwages are contingent upon regularization, and that a separate application (O.A. No. 119/2023) seeking regularization is already pending before the Tribunal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard learned counsel, Sri.T.C.Gupta appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.Pramod learned counsel for respondent No.2, as well as learned CGC, Smt.Subha.S, for respondent No.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.C.Gupta would submit that the petitioners are before this Court questioning the order dated 25.01.2023, in Misc. Application No. 123/2022 in O.A.Nos.1293- 1295/2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Learned counsel would submit that the miscellaneous application was filed to initiate execution proceedings against the respondents for compliance of the directions issued on 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.170/1293-1295/2015. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB
Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application erroneously, without appreciating the fact that the Tribunal by order dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 directed that benefits of judgment in Annexure-A2, A3 and A4 i.e., order dated 27.01.2012 in (i) O.A. No.128/2008, (ii) order passed in O.A.No.145/2008, as well as (iii) order dated 18.06.2013 in Writ Petition No.70873/2012 and connected matters be extended. The learned counsel would further submit that in the orders referred, there was a direction to regularize the services of the applicants therein and to grant the consequential benefits. In view of the disposal of the applications filed by the petitioners in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the petitioners would be entitled for regularization as well as consequential benefits thereon. Learned counsel would also submit that the Tribunal instead of examining the claim of the petitioners for regularization, dismissed the miscellaneous application only on the ground of inordinate HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB delay. It is submitted that the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of the order dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos. 1293-1295/2015. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod for respondent No.2, as well as learned CGC, Smt.Subha.S, for respondent No.1 would support the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and further would submit that in O.A.Nos. 1293-1295/2015, there was no prayer for regularization and the petitioners had only sought for a direction to grant temporary status, on par with other similarly working casual labourers under Casual Labourers (Grant Of Temporary Status And Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that unless the services of the petitioners are regularized, they would not be entitled for continuity of service backwages, pension scheme benefit or any other consequential benefits. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB Further, the learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court that O.A.No.119/2023, praying for regularization of the service of the petitioners is pending before the Tribunal. As such, the petitioners are not entitled for the prayer sought in the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that would fall for our consideration is : “Whether the impugned order in the writ petition requires interference at the hands of this Court?”
Our answer would be in ‘negative’ for the following reasons: The grievance of the petitioners is that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 is not implemented and miscellaneous application filed for a direction to initiate execution proceedings for compliance of the direction is rejected on the ground of delay. Application in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 was filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondents to grant the Applicants a temporary status on par with other similarly working Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme to Govt. of India, 1993; b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction, directing the Respondents to give the continuity of service, backwages, Pension scheme and all other consequential benefits which they are legally entitled to meet the ends of justice; c) Grant to the Applicants the costs of this application and pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit to pass in the fact and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”
In the above stated O.A., the petitioners had not prayed for regularization of their services. What was prayed was for a direction to grant the applicants a temporary status on par with other similarly working HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB casual labourers in accordance with Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the prayer of the petitioners at O.A. above for grant of temporary status is complied by issuing an Order No.68/2017, dated 25.02.2017 which is extracted in the impugned order. The second prayer of the petitioners in the O.A. would not arise for the present and the petitioners would be entitled for those benefits only on regularization of their service. The Tribunal on the submission of the counsel appearing for the parties in O.A.Nos.1293-1295/2015 disposed of the application, recording that the matter is covered by Annexures-A2, A3 and A4. When there was no prayer for regularization, the petitioners placing reliance on Annexures-A2, A3 and A4 in the said O.A. is misplaced as such, they cannot seek for implementation of the order dated 07.06.2016, in O.A.Nos.170/1293-1295/2015. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22822-DB
Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, O.A. No.119/2023 filed by the petitioners is pending before the Tribunal, wherein the petitioners have sought for regularization of their services. In the above circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.